tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 23, 2016 6:00am-7:01am EDT
first, we developed a team of experts. now, you will be amazed to hear a lot of republicans could not spell afdc. [laughter] they didn't know anything about welfare reform. it was very important we developed a team of people who really knew what they were talking about and people like shaw, jim talent -- i will bet you a nickel, you did not know much about it before we got into this debate, but he was a fast learner. and we had several like that. the second thing was, we worked off of doing the policy and passing a bill in congress depends on a lot of relationships. i think that is one reason we have trouble passing bills now. these relationships developed over 3, 4, 5 year periods.
we had a well oiled machine by the time we took over the house in 1994. and the third on the substantive issues, writing the legislation, learning about the statutes that were in place, what we want to do, and finally, i think the most important thing was we found out where we disagreed. and we knew going in we were going to have a big problem with heritage and that robert was going to be breathing down our next the whole time, and it turned out bill bennett was like that, too. there were definitely cracks in the republican party. it's not like we all were singing "comekumbaya." we had real differences in the republican party and started developing solutions before we were in the limelight. mr. kaus: i remember it was stunning to me when you and heritage came in with the illegitimacy agenda. i thought everybody was happy and wanted a nice workfare bill. mr. rector: right, the history of how this welfare reform came about, it started with ronald reagan. when ronald reagan was governor of california, he wanted to make afdc paras work for their
welfare benefits. hhs kind of blocked him from doing that. every year ronald reagan sought one thing, a work requirement for afdc mothers and i got blocked by a democratic congress year after year, and his second term, reagan had an advisor who i believe is really the forerunner of welfare reform. his name was chuck hobbs. and chuck hobbs said we are not going to get what we want, which is a real work requirement for afdc moms through a democratic congress. so, i'm going to invent this thing called waivers. and the point of waivers, as chuck explained it to me, was not he believed all the wisdom was out in the states. chuck wanted and reagan wanted workfare for afdc moms. he says, i'm am going to get two states that run good workfare programs, and those states will allow us to overcome the
fundamental objections to workfare, which was it will create a lot of property, and oh, my goodness, it costs much more than the status quo, therefore you can't afford to do it. that really blocked efforts to reform. and chuck said, we have to break through that. we have to show that is nonsense. all i need to do that is two states. and he got them. wisconsin and oregon. ok? that enabled us to set the grant to say it's not true that a work based system is more expensive than a handout system. so, chuck set the waiver process in place, but in place to lead to national work requirements. then along came clinton. clinton got ronald reagan's lines. he understood them perfectly. he understood they were overwhelmingly popular with the public, as your polling showed, at that time and he took over the issue.
meantime, the bush administration was sitting there saying, waivers, waivers, waivers, thinking bush allowed clinton to take away reagan's issue from them, allowed clinton to flank him on the right. from my perspective, that is the issue that put clinton in the white house in 1992, took it right from ronald reagan, maybe with a little arkansas spin on it, and putting in their -- put it in there. and then what happened was, you did not do welfare reform. you did gays in the military, hillarycare. when you tried to do your bill, you ran into this stupid budget law. cbo said anything you had to do would cost more than the status
quo, so any bill up to the contract for america, the work requirements did not take place until you are outside the budget window, right? you are 8, 9, 10 years out before the actual work requirements occur so you can get beyond this ridiculous cbo score. i can't emphasize how very important that was and how this issue shaped out. one of the things we did in the summer of 1994 was, first of all, we said we would block grant afdc, so it does not matter what cbo says it costs, but just to convince the republican party that cbo was full of it and the standard conventional wisdom from the big beltway bandits was if you put a work program and it will reduce the caseload by 5% over two years -- i knew from my experience going back 15 years i can get a 90% reduction in the
afdc program and about two months with a work requirement, that it would cause the caseload to go down rapidly and save money. that would allow us to get past the budgetary hurdle you guys were stuck with. the worst thing i ever did was to tell jim talent he was wasting his time to work on the contract with america. and that he should ignore it. i'm glad he did not. >> from my perspective, i think the coming together, the proximity in town, but also in time of really able people -- well, since i'm in this group, maybe i should not say really able, but people across town scholarly community who actually cared about what was happening in lower income america. now, everybody cares here in the sense that if they could snap their fingers and make things better for poor people, they would. but cared in the sense which is meaningful in this town, which
is i am willing to take some risks, i am willing to examine some of my positions about all of this, i'm willing to spend some money. i'm willing to go out on a limb and make it a priority over time and see what emerges. i am not a guy who runs washington down a lot. i was here a long time. i actually liked almost all of my colleagues. i think that is unusual. it went on for a long time. the foundation was laid with a lot of writing from charles murray, alice rivlin, harry meade, a lot of people, and i think we all kind of got together and i was -- obviously i was a second term congressman. i did not deal directly with the administration. it was mostly republicans in the house, but we talked about clay,
but santorum and camp and nancy johnson and tim hutchinson -- there are so many names. people were really trying to figure out what would work. from our perspective on the republican side, and i think a lot of democrats felt this way, too -- the two best anti-poverty programs that have gotten americans out of poverty for generation our work and marriage basically. what we have done is hinge assistance to poor people are >> "washington journal" continues.
that's an oversimplification, but we felt that was the problem and we wanted to fix it. so many policies never got off the ground cause of cbo or omb. ok? i'm sorry if you work for one of those organizations. this is an example. when we did the community renewal act, which was the follow-up to this, and the president signed that in 2000 and said it would bring the benefits of capitalism to the poor -- it was the only signing ceremony i ever attended. i went over there for that. we had this bill that was designed to renew distressed communities around the country. a lot of pilot programs -- and the press said, how much is this going to cost. i want everybody to step back and ask yourself this question. do you think this bill will really help to renew the worst and most distressed annuities in the country? ok. if you don't think that, then you do not want to support the bill, fine. if you do think that, how can it cost money? think about it. how could it and up costing us money if it's going to bring all of these neighborhoods -- it can't. i don't care what cbo says. i don't care what omb says. it can cost money, right? and the big -- i don't know if i would call it a mistake.
my regret was we were never able to take the out of wedlock worth rate issue, and cap's allies it -- encapsulated in a legislative agenda and a way that was represented in the work issue and still haven't. mr. kaus: there was not a welfare bill that was part of the contract of america that the republicans ran on and one on in 1994, and then all eyes turned o congress, and there is a history that follows that, which culminates in clinton veto in congress's product twice, once as part of the budget, once as a stand-alone, and then something happens to get the republicans started up again and produce a bill he could sign. at some point the governor's lobby for a revolution.
perhaps some unidentified aide in congress said they wanted congress to leave the money on a stump in the middle of the night in a forest so they could take it. but luckily, this person was too self-effacing to ever have himself identified with this court. ron, do you want to talk about the post-contract history? mr. haskins: yeah, a lot of things happened. a lot of the big difference on the republican side, clay shaw and the republicans always wanted to pass a bill, and santorum, i swear, had been there 30 seconds and he wanted to pass a bill. that was always part of our
thinking. other people wanted to make a political point, show the president was a wimp, they wanted a contrast between the republicans on the president, and we wanted to close the gap so we could pass a bill. that conditioned our thinking a lot. republicans were clinically depressed after the second time he didn't sign the bill. there was a big -- thinking oh, what is next? we did all this work. sent it through twice. what really happened, kick started -- there were underlying factors, but the kickstart came from the governors. it just so happened to the nga was in town. i think it was the end of february. they had a plan. it was bipartisan. and so -- i talked to shaw and
archer and said, called gingrich. we want on this. we have to modify it. it's never going to pass. robert rector will hate it. heritage will hate it. but it will get us off the mat and we can get rolling. i see you want me to stop, so i will. mr. kaus: we have 10 minutes to go, so we have to be quick. didn't have to do with dole's flagging fortunes. the old one of the issue versus clinton, so he was happy mr. haskins: that was a factor. that became a factor. that became effective. the republicans on the ways and means committee, they requested a meeting with newt and told him straight up, our bill, achievements by the republican revolution -- which had not done anything -- was way more important mental's candidacy. let him worry about his candidacy. we were going to pass this bill. and we did. mr. talent: we did not take the campaign into account. people look at this and they see the linear connections -- of course, politicians are always thinking politically. you have to, because if you
don't have a sustainable political base for what you're trying to achieve -- i was a second term congressman. i never thought we sent it over there hoping he would veto it so dole could win the election. i know -- i have been in enough of those tables to know -- i don't care what happens on tv, that is not what, you know -- and i never thought the president said, oh, i'm going to lose the election unless i -- just stop and think about this for a minute. of course in the back of his mind, he may have said to himself, this probably makes the next three weeks or a month a little easier, something like that. but i just wanted to ring in and say, that's just not how they make decisions. mr. kaus: robert, do you agree? mr. rector: i agree in that dole has been very weak on welfare reform -- had basically bungled it during his election bid, only reinforces that.
mr. kaus: i find it hard to believe. maybe it is because i'm a political reporter and we don't like to grant sincerity to anybody, but if dole had been doing better and it had been 50-49, clinton and all, i can't believe republicans would've done the same thing. mr. rector: i think that would have enclosed it. but he managed to take a lot of people off. he was an impediment in the senate. he ran horribly on it in the campaign. what he did in the campaign when he was running for president, he said, oh, the did a focus group and everything and they found that people really liked drug testing for welfare recipients. it just polled really well. so, ok, we are going to do drug testing for welfare recipients, but dole -- dole was a big states flexibility guy, so dole says -- they have a big press conference -- you probably remember this -- they roll out this big new initiative. we are going to require drug testing, except it will be a state option, at which point,
clinton says -- and three minutes he says, ok. you can have a waiver. and the whole welfare thing just collapses. mr. talent: of course, in that kind of dynamic, you have the list of things that you want and the exchanges to that point should have given you a pretty good idea what the president and his people are going to have heartburn over. of course, you are going to push him as far to the edge -- the fact he had to think about it shows we made good judgments and put a lot in there he had to guide on -- there are things we wanted we knew he did not want. it does not mean we wanted him to veto it. it just means we thought, well, we can put him in a position where we can get some things we want we could not have gotten any other way. i'm sure that was the dynamic.
mr. haskins: let me make a quick point. it will not the more than a minute. this is a really crucial thing. you are going to have at least nine out of 10 bills you will have serious internal conflicts, and the party that is really a good party and masters those can contain them and hold their votes. i went through and counted the votes in the floor -- republicans were a machine. even though there was a lot of hard feelings sometimes. we always retained our votes. that is how come we were able to pass the bill. mr. kaus: this is a good last question, also a good segue to the next panel. are you happy with the way governors have handled the evolution under the bill? chuck hobbs, i think, was right. the problem was not one size does not fit all. one size probably would fit all if we knew what the size was. [laughter]
mr. kaus: have any of the governors, taking this new authority you gave them, done enough to find out what the size is? mr. talent: i would say i could not possibly be more disappointed with governors. the first five years under the act when the federal work requirements were pushing governors forward, caseloads felt her magically, employment increased. by the time governors met the standards, it fell into stasis. today, as we speak, in the average state, 55% of the caseload is sitting at home doing absolutely nothing. why is it 55%? that is what the federal standards require you cannot go below that. to the extent to the act succeeded was because of federal requirements. the opposite picture of that was on the question of marriage, all we got was three of four major goals of the act were to
increase marriage and reduce nonmarital childbearing. we have now spent $600 billion on an act where three out of four goals were to promote marriage and what do we get from the states? one in measurably small marriage program in one state after 20 years. i really don't have good opinions about state welfare bureaucracies, but they came in way below even my expectations. the final point that is really important is people are always talking about did we spend enough on tan of -- tanf? the other thing it did was these funding. funding. any other state if they wanted a big welfare cash check program, they could do that, but they had to do that with state money, not federal money. what we found after 20 years, even the most liberal states have not done that. they have kept their caseloads low -- with the exception of
oregon -- a have kept their caseloads low, because to do otherwise would force them to spend real money. federal money is not real money to them. their money is real. they are much more prudent in the way they spend their money. that is a real federalist lesson. collecting money in washington and dumping it on the states is not federalism. making the state governments spend their own money on welfare, they are not going to be conservatives, but they are going to be much more frugal than if it is washington money. mr. haskins: here is the thing -- at the time, the block grant was a good idea. it shook things up, it gave the voters like tommy thompson and engler control. but then it turned out the governors became a mashed in politics. they had to do something about daycare. they had to give scholarships for college. they were pulled in all different directions.
we gave them the flexibility. so, they had tons of flexibility. but we are still in charge. we still write the statutes. why aren't republicans doing something? it could be changed. for example, we could change tomorrow the statute that the governors can only spend tanf on cash welfare and workfare programs. i think that would be prudent. i know robert would like to but marriage in there -- mr. kaus: take the first part out, spend cash money -- [laughter] >> when i went back into the senate and we did the
reauthorization, at the time, i was disappointed because we had a wave for about 10 years of governors who were willing to take risks, to challenge things from different perspectives, and we saw two of them today in bill weld, evan by, keene did some of this. there were a lot of governors have their. and we just aren't hearing that. i just want to do a disservice to anyone out there, but no one is asking themselves -- if you want to helpful to the situation, it's a question both of changing the incentive structure so that they do take more responsibility for their lives, but also giving them the kind of outside assistance that enables them to do that and gives them hope they can do it. i used to say -- what would you do if it was your little sister? you would make certain your
needs were met. you would provide her with encouragement, but you would also say, there are some changes and decisions in your own life you are going to have to -- that is how anybody would treat someone they cared about. so the problem is, how do you re-create that the processes of government? it is technically very difficult. you will not do it through bureaucratic model, but you will not do it just by changing the incentives and letting people pull themselves up by their bootstraps. you have to find other ways, and that requires a lot of effort, innovative governorship -- we can do pilot programs appear, and i have done that. the states are an ongoing pilot program, and we do need more innovative governors to do more from right of center and left of center and to push their own groups who will tell them you can't change anything,, because if you change anything a poverty rates will go up. i'd agree, i am disappointed.
>> if you have questions, you will have to save them for the next panel. thank you. [applause] >> as is always said, this panel is between you and the reception. [laughter] >> so be nice to us, because we know the chef. i'm doug buescherroff, and i teach at the university of maryland. i want to thank the last panel for setting up this panel. we have a small panel. and we have all of 30 minutes. so here is what we are going to
do. i'm not going to introduce them. two, except for a couple sentences i will hardly say anything. but i will tell you what the assignment was. the last panel, besides all that reminiscing, was we have to do a better job in the future. the assignment to this panel is tell us what we should do in the future. we are going to start with the staff director of house ways and means subcommittee of human resources, andwho is a successor -- then we will go down the list. and because she is a big shot and because this is her home, she gives 10 minutes. everyone else gets five minutes.
anyone who ends early gets our love and appreciation. five minutes because i do have to keep this to roughly on-time. thank you very much. >> well, thank you. to follow ron, he raised the bar when he had it in the last panel. we have certainly our work cut out for us these days. the fact that there has been a discussion draft of their, there has been movement, but in the last 10 years we happen to dinner major reauthorization of the program, and that is something we are struggling with and work in a bipartisan way to do. i'm going to set up where we are now and what we see going forward. at the committee, and the speakers' efforts. in, the last two years we released a discussion draft and got a lot of feedback. there is still a lot of thoughts
on both sides about how this program should operate, how it has played out, what the role has been the states, what the role of the federal government should be. that debate continues. that debate about education and training and what role it should play is the top of the mound. that is not something we have been able to break through at the subcommittee or in the congress, because we started from the bottom up in the last year or so, and looking at what pieces could be pick off to put it back in the box. the last panel did a nice job of segueing into where we are today, what states are using the money for. are they focusing on individuals under 200% of poverty?
not all of them. what can we do to get them back to their purpose, and in doing that, there are good lessons we have learned. and when it was created in 1996, when all the debates were going on about welfare reform, ultimately a was about just one program. there will luck of discussions about medicaid and food stamps, but ultimately the only reformed one program. where we are, and to the speaker's task force on poverty opportunity and upward mobility, we have been focusing on what is that mean going forward. some of you may be familiar with the welfare state charge the government put out which devastates the -- with demonstrates the 80 programs that create welfare. those programs haven't been touched. they haven't been focused on, helping full truth from where they are from where they need to be. and so the progress that has been made over the last 20 years
has opened our eyes to what we need to do next, and that means going beyond it, strengthening relationships with the child support enforcement program. what are other ways in which the lessons we learned about establishing paternity, setting expectations, can be applied to other programs that include food stamps or housing or how do we engage fathers? it's also about looking at other programs and how they're expecting work, or not expecting work, and how those things that together. for those of us at the ways and means committee, we have four themes that we see guiding us going forward to not only apply the lessons of tnf but to reapply them to the larger safety net across the programs.
and it really continues to be expect work in exchange for benefits, preparing for work, doing something, getting out of the house. that piece remains and is a big part of what should be a basis for our programs. the second part is getting the incentives right. we heard it on the last panel. the second part of that is getting the incentives right. i think you heard that on the last panel. it's incentives for nonprofits that engage in the process. t's making sure the financial incentives are there for folks who do the right thing. it was eluded to early on and in thet of what happened of s and 1990s was a lot
evaluation. come to a point 20 years later where we are much more effective at doing evaluation. much quicker at turning the results around. and making that a consistent how it is that we do public policy. everyone likes to talk about decision making but embedding it in the way that we do our business. along with the incentives. so you can set up things to incentive for the evaluation. .mproving the integrity the programs are there for those who truly need them the most. nd so, i think senator talen talked about it. we also need to make sure the integrity is there. do have limited resources.
states may think money comes in fact, it but, doesn't. it comes from hardworking taxpayers every day. it to them to make sure we're spending their money properly. when we bring all of those things together, along with some pieces that folks at other committees working on education create a ng, you system that helps support families. a ay we talked a lot about program from where we sit and where we think about these issues it's about a system. a family does not walk into a i fare office and say like need this program. they walk in and they have trouble. electric pay their bill. they can't get their kids to school on time because they transportation and they need to get to work. they don't care what these programs are. it's our responsibility to make t work for families that are
out there. just want to point out that we're making progress. we hope folks will remain conversation that we're having and what we've been basis, n a bipartisan rying to take tanif out of the appropriations process where it's just been extensions and regain the program. hat's a priority of chairman brady's. also look and take a wider view at what's going on with the rest our safety net. >> thank you very much. flexibility. yeah. were coming you down. okay. okay. well, in wisconsin, we're trying the issue of at
two parent families. to think get people about we don't believe there's case loads who had that. because we don't believe that most of the e that children come with another parent attached to them omewhere, that we really want to go after fathers. lookedwhat we've done is at one of the goals to try to together.es we are looking at fathers really hard. so we put in three programs to do that.o one is -- and all of them pro-side some kind of subsidy to men. i know that's kind of unusual because most of these guys subsidized ed employment. couple things that we found out bout it is that when we get
uys jobs, many of them get married. so it ought to say something to us that men don't marry when jobs.don't have and if we can get them employment, they tend to form families. the other side of that is women don't marry men who don't have jobs. it's kind of critical that we try to figure out how to get men jobs. out just getting them jobs was not enough. we also need to figure out, us use many of them come to having been in the welfare system, having been in prison in their trauma lives. so they also need the kind of upport we give to women but we don't give to men. so we need to put those kind of systems much more clinical. they also need, and i know some like this.not gonna they need spiritual development. because many of them have no all. at and they need some. the other one is communication skills. is math skills.
one of the reasons we focus on because within wisconsin, one of the jobs that re going untasked are infrastructure jobs, plumbers, electricians, carpenter, workers and machinists and welders. set hose require the same of skills. math. geometry and trig. they're not really difficult ubjects and we can teach them pretty easily and pretty fast. one of the things we're pushing is math skills. so fathers can have decent jobs so they can have a family. are looking ng we t i call this welfare 2.0 is that changing our provider system. ost of the people who provide social services are women. that's the wrong set of providers. so what we would like to have is providing services to
themselves in do phemestic viol situation. they go into domestic violence programs that are designed by women for what they think men need. what we'd like to have is more programs that are designed by men for what men need. so we want to turn our whole system around toward giving men a fair opportunity within our system. we feel we start to deal with the goals which is to support arriage and father involved families. that's it. >> actually it sounds quite logical. first of all, great decision. many involved in this revolution and it's really been to be involvedge myself. the states played a crucial role welfare reform. we've heard about that from the governors earlier, through the experiments and also through the jobs program, states figured out how to build work welfare system. they didn't all do it equally about somee've heard examples in the case of also new michigan, york city where you still have a well developed system. real success.nk a the problem with the person however, is ty act, that it not only allows funds away from proper, it did not require that he states maintain the work
programs which they had previously instituted. now could satisfy the space requirements mainly by taking for the many jobs they got. what you have in many states is a serious work program aimed at welfare mothers. talking ink anne is about is efforts really to econstruct the kind of work programs that states have under the waiver system and also the jobs. we need to go back to an idea that there has to be an actual welfare ram aimed at mothers with a structure that allows experimentation. there has to be a federal structure of goals that means his program is aimed at the things that we want to lead to and come out of welfare. the way things's are going. clearly we need to do that. have something beyond a work participation standard. he other thing i want to do, i
would like to see, i think eloise already said this. extend welfare reform beyond welfare mothers which is it addressed in the 90s. we need to have welfare reform for men. eloise is really talking about. y previous book has been referred how one can do that by system e child support and the justice system. hese systems are aimed at punishing men. we don't create an institution for them to do that. to do is to have work programs aimed at men who hould be working either in child support or criminal justice. states are developing these we realize.e than it's just that nobody inside the about it.as heard we need to take seriously the progress that's being made here. need to move forward with the kind of reforms which the
support hild enforcement has already suggested. held up orms have been in congress. need to make it possible for there to be federal funding for work programsrted and develop institutional structure will make it possible o have a serious work program for men. so i think that is really the frontier. have welfare reform for men. just put that huge challenge at workfeet and ask people to on that more than they have to up to now. at ne advantage of coming the end is i have to read my notes that i have prepared. people said what i wanted. just want to develop a little bit particularly what ron and about.just talked
it seems to me in '9d 6 there was great promise that states more comprehensive work programs, programs that issues with more not only deal with getting people into work, but all work, them stay in helping them advance. and i think there was initially lot of enthusiasm for that. states were interested in that. them, jointects with efforts together and evaluation. died out.retty much and i think there are a number out.easons it died i think it's basically what ron said. money was drained out of the other purposes. so work programs kind oven than developed. and i think the only way we can of remedy that is bring money back for that purpose.
purpose alone. and maybe ron is correct that that by restricting tanif. the other option is to put more money in. i think there's a lot of disagreement about what the money would go for. i would say it should go for programs.develop work i i, myself, would provide flexibility and require rigorous that.tion of i think that's a way that we can learn about what's effective and isn't. and i think also it would nergize states again potentially to really take this effort seriously. there are a number of reasons why i think the money reasons.other part of it i think that some of like ere for good things more child care, stronger child protect teufrb services. but i think it was also that those things were easy.
you ad existing systems, knew what to do and you could augment what was going on. comprehensive work programs was really a new frontier. think that's why it was xciting for awhile, while it lasted, while there was money to support it. i think it was hard to do. money, asy to take the do other things with it. lot of the money went for unrelated.otally i think it's hard to deny that. it isk the only way to do to really bring back something wherehe waiver experience if states are encouraged to given money hey're to do it and that's all they can do with it. think that is the only -- without money, i don't think in e will be any progress this area.
>> so first let me admit maybe there's something wrong with me, i'm really enjoying this. i'm a policy geek. my background, i actually came in as a welfare administrator in in 1993 right wa as the state was implementing state wide waivers. of waivers. number some were things we copied from other states like the make work concept that you've heard from the governors and from others. one that we did, i was told we the first at the time to do a true state wide full family sanction. that was right as implemented and varied by week media s answering more queries on that or signing off on more studies or reports on and policy changes and process studies. i think what we learned from two years bsequently after i worked for governor as director. services what we learned out of that is what we're really trying to do
forms was to t of increase risks and rewarsd. through things like work incentives, making work pay, opportunities to build assets, services. you're creating the rewards and the opportunities for welfare work.ients to go to risks were, of force, really transformed in the form of we to make these programs look like employment. these are employment programs after all. consequences o be if you don't show up to work on time, you get docked in pay or lose your job. if you don't participate in the work programs you lose some or benefits.r when welfare reform passed i asked to were consolidate two things that i think had the biggest impact, one is the flexibility. talked about it. there's debates oven whether good, bad, abused or whatever. but i think it did drive a lot of impact. regardless of what you think the bottom line is, i will adamantly
efend that the current system is better than what we had. the second thing i think made a uge difference was work participation rate. it truly changed the sul khur of state government. e had talked about things like jobs programs under the family is up ported act of '88. we had toyed with the work waivers.under work par teus payings rate made it real. as congress thinks about what i started maybe 100,000 foot level. ot so sure i didn't accidentally get anne's notes here. when i think about the frame work i think you really is to a discussion around what are the outcomes you want? ab job of were placements and case load reduction. we started thinking about things wage rates and retention and i would say retention is a good outcome of a because it means you've got placement. you've got them at an income that was sustained at work. you've got employer
satisfaction. i think there has to be on those outcomes. there has to be incentives to drive behavior. that.alked about there has to be aspects of the program integrity. work participation rate discussion. i don't think it's working today the way people wanted it to. i think states are doing a lot of good things to put people to work. talk about eed to outcomes. i hope that flexibility stays. of that challenge is the debate around it started 20 years ago is a rapid job or is it work in training? i have always said best mix of of and training is a mix work and training. it really depends on participant area, your local economic what are the jobs? do you have an abundance of or entry lls jobs level jobs? do you have sectors with good employers and job demand in can create sector based training programs? those are the kinds of things the need to retain the flexibility so that states continue with those programs.
shouldn't be some kind of accountability to drive it. i think flexibility will be important. you have the last word on the topic. >> thank you, todd. going to pick up on something that anne said. tenets is expect work in exchange for benefits. increasingly difficult, if you adhere to that a way forward from where we are to effectuate it. explain why. difficult today than before. when welfare reform was passed, learned, one of the things we learned is that if case workers really have to go to work and thanks for being in the
gonna help ow we're you look for a job and put you in a position to take a job. when that was perceived as the y the only option, or best option, or if you didn't take that option and go to work would private sector, you end up working in a community service job or going to training. was her words, your time occupied. back then, that was a powerful incentive when we learned that went right into work. that you don't have to take and ody in the front door process them through government program that really what happens reality is people act of jobs own val eugs and take that they could have gotten on their own, had they needed to. that part of the system isn't functioning any more. he reason for that is, the that is awash in money wasn't there before that people can survive on, live on. prosper, but can avoid
work. examples.e you three let's take food stamps. itc, e three examples the food stamps and disability. all those three programs provide into the system without obligation to work. say eitc 're gonna does have an obligation to work disaviewgoing to try to you of that. let's take food stamps first. how many minutes do i have left? minutes. f you look at that chart over there, the green line is there. 2.1 from '96 from 4.7 to cases. look at food stamps. exactly tracks it. because people on food stamps combined it with tanef. when they went to work they usually closed the food stamp case and they were going to work. beginning in 2002, an explicit decision by the food and service in the bush
administration was to expand nonworkings including food stamps. there was no parent of work and look what and now happened. the red line shows how many. same people, the same families, female, primarily that head of house holds were on tanf. but they're not expected to work and they don't work. second, disability. the disability rolls have expanded immeasurably. of academic work revolves around the notion that isability, because it's increasingly easy to get, has substitute for retirement. for people that want to retire early. be attacked.to the only way to get to that is condition the obsession out of the disability rolls with some form of participation including vocational education is not there. his congress won't abide by it
neither will the social security administration in the form of a waiver. ditc.inally the this is the most disturbing of eitc because initially the pairs your obligation or your benefits.k with that's a good thingbut here's at we learned in wisconsin the welfare office. between january and march of recipients elfare won't come in, many of them, most of them, to participate in work activity because they take the eitc benefit without it.ing earned what that means is you can go the ways and show means committee how to do this. turbo go online with tax, make up self-employment, ake children from other families with their social security numbers, submit it and 45 days later you'll get a check for 6,000 bucks. that's a huge problem right now. o if you take those three
things, you really have a system now that we didn't have 20 years ago. system that exists without work and without the obligation to work. is to ing we need to do but also focus a all programs should have work requirement or activity requirement in force of one kind or another. >> i'm an academic. i have forced to come to some conclusions besides the wonderful of the program. this thing we call welfare 20 or 30 years. larry, when did you write about program?city's what year? >> first article was '83 i think. a program that started in the late 70s? >> '67. there was a history with a
involved.ople getting and we heard from the last panel, well nothing much is going on. a little from this panel some of the things that are going on. part of that is we haven't had a process that brings that to the attention of policy makers or public in the way that 20 or 30 year period of welfare reform took place. secondly, you heard a number of people talking about job training. i'm here to tell you i inhale, phrase.coin a but the fact is we don't really know how to do it. an fact is we don't have infrastructure for doing it. and that's a long hard road. the sooner we start, the better. realize that we're not doing all that much today. would n the last point i make, a number of people talk ab the waivers, the experiment and available hat was
either within the system or from he state and the experiments themselves. we're clearly gonna need, i don't think this is a political comment. some clearly gonna need money to lieu pwreu kate this system. ill the money comes from new appropriations or comes from a waiver, that's something that we table and e on the people will work it out. ut you can think that this process can move to fruition by having 10 or 15 experts sit table and come to a conclusion. it will take the kind of work '60s and the in the '70s and came to fruition in the '90s. that process has to start again. thanke organizers, let me you very much. you've been a great audience. you clap and all that sort of stuff for this great jason wants to make an announcement. >> thank you, doug. that are veral of us
getting together for dinner at the feathers after reception which would be approximately 6:45 or something like that. so if you would like to come and and sit -- dinner heard that, right? >> if you would stand up, stand up, tammy. if you would let tammy know you'd like to join us about 6:45 we'll be leaving from here and walking to bull feathers, to have you. >> when do they fill those tables? >> right away. >> this is 5:45. to -- we're going >> no, no. those tables right there. when does the reception start? immediately. >> there you go. all right. thank you.
host:good morning it's tuesday august 23rd. president obama is headed for ouisiana to survey damage an recovery efforts in the wake of recent flooding in the state. campaign trail, hillary clinton is dealing with the fallout from newly released e from her time as secretary of state. we begin this morning on the washington journal and the virginia where terry mccullough yesterday the voting store rights for felons who completed their sentences and probation. coming less than two months before the presidential election thee re calling